IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v25y2014i5p1287-1305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going Underground: Bootlegging and Individual Innovative Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Paola Criscuolo

    (Imperial College Business School, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom)

  • Ammon Salter

    (School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom)

  • Anne L. J. Ter Wal

    (Imperial College Business School, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom)

Abstract

To develop innovations in large, mature organizations, individuals often have to resort to underground, “bootleg” research and development (R&D) activities that have no formal organizational support. In doing so, these individuals attempt to achieve greater autonomy over the direction of their R&D efforts and to escape the constraints of organizational accountability. Drawing on theories of proactive creativity and innovation, we argue that these underground R&D efforts help individuals to develop innovations based on the exploration of uncharted territory and delayed assessment of embryonic ideas. After carefully assessing the direction of causality, we find that individuals’ bootleg efforts are associated with achievement of high levels of innovative performance. Furthermore, we show that the costs and benefits of bootlegging for innovation are contingent on the emphasis on the enforcement of organizational norms in the individual’s work environment; we argue and demonstrate empirically that the benefits of an individual’s bootlegging efforts are enhanced in work units with high levels of innovative performance and which include members who are also engaged in bootlegging. However, during periods of organizational change involving formalization of the R&D process, individuals who increase their bootlegging activities are less likely to innovate. We explore the implications of these findings for our understanding of proactive and deviant creativity.

Suggested Citation

  • Paola Criscuolo & Ammon Salter & Anne L. J. Ter Wal, 2014. "Going Underground: Bootlegging and Individual Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1287-1305, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:25:y:2014:i:5:p:1287-1305
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0856
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2013.0856?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristina Dahlin & Margaret Taylor & Mark Fichman, 2004. "Today's Edisons or Weekend Hobbyists: Technical Merit and Success of Inventions by Independent Inventors," Post-Print hal-00480420, HAL.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Antoncic, Bostjan & Hisrich, Robert D., 2001. "Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 495-527, September.
    4. Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 590-607, May.
    5. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    6. Kenneth E. Knight, 1967. "A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm Innovation Process," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40, pages 478-478.
    7. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    8. Burgelman, Robert A. & Grove, Andrew S., 2007. "Let Chaos Reign, Then Rein In Chaos--Repeatedly: Managing Strategic Dynamics For Corporate Longevity," Research Papers 1954, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Yu-Ting Cheng & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1996. "Learning the Innovation Journey: Order out of Chaos?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(6), pages 593-614, December.
    10. Tom J. M. Mom & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 812-828, August.
    11. Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1993. "In search of useful theory of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 108-108, April.
    12. Bennet A. Zelner, 2009. "Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(12), pages 1335-1348, December.
    13. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
    14. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Van de Ven, Andrew R., 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Agricultural Research Policy Seminar 139708, University of Minnesota Extension.
    16. Robert A. Burgelman & Andrew S. Grove, 2007. "Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos—repeatedly: managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(10), pages 965-979, October.
    17. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    18. Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2008. "Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 69-89, February.
    19. Elizabeth E. Umphress & John B. Bingham, 2011. "When Employees Do Bad Things for Good Reasons: Examining Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 621-640, June.
    20. Levinthal, Daniel & March, James G., 1981. "A model of adaptive organizational search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 307-333, December.
    21. Dahlin, Kristina & Taylor, Margaret & Fichman, Mark, 2004. "Today's Edisons or weekend hobbyists: technical merit and success of inventions by independent inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1167-1183, October.
    22. David C. Mowery, 2009. "Plus ca change," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(1), pages 1-50, February.
    23. Thorbjørn Knudsen & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2007. "Two Faces of Search: Alternative Generation and Alternative Evaluation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 39-54, February.
    24. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yaqub, Ohid & Coburn, Josie & Moore, Duncan A.Q., 2023. "Knowledge spillovers from HIV research-funding," SocArXiv gcuhn, Center for Open Science.
    2. Smirnova, Inna & Reitzig, Markus & Alexy, Oliver, 2022. "What makes the right OSS contributor tick? Treatments to motivate high-skilled developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    3. Donada, Carole & Mothe, Caroline & Alegre, Joaquín, 2021. "Managing skunkworks to achieve ambidexterity: The Robinson Crusoe effect," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 214-225.
    4. Hartmann, Mia Rosa & Hartmann, Rasmus Koss, 2023. "Hiding practices in employee-user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    5. Ter Wal, Anne L.J. & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2017. "Making a marriage of materials: The role of gatekeepers and shepherds in the absorption of external knowledge and innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 1039-1054.
    6. Castellacci, Fulvio & Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Hildrum, Jarle & Martinkenaite, Ieva & Simensen, Erlend, 2018. "Functional centrality and innovation intensity: Employee-level analysis of the Telenor group," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1674-1687.
    7. Brennecke, Julia & Sofka, Wolfgang & Wang, Peng & Rank, Olaf N., 2021. "How the organizational design of R&D units affects individual search intensity – A network study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    8. Pedersen, Carsten Lund, 2021. "Taking matters into one’s own hands? Addressing the relational nature of FLE autonomy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 366-376.
    9. Cirillo, Bruno & Breschi, Stefano & Prencipe, Andrea, 2018. "Divide to connect: Reorganization through R&D unit spinout as linking context of intra-corporate networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1585-1600.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    2. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    3. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe & Maréva Sabatier, 2010. "The Impact Of Organisational Context And Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 151-178.
    4. Burgers, J. Henri & Jansen, Justin J.P. & Van den Bosch, Frans A.J. & Volberda, Henk W., 2009. "Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 206-220, May.
    5. Onexy Quintana-Martinez & Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez, 2016. "Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-96, April.
    6. Lin, H.E., 2010. "Effects of strategy, context and antecedents and capabilities on the outcomes of ambidexterity : A multiple country case study of the US, China and Taiwan," Other publications TiSEM c0eab7d6-d6c7-4b55-9822-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Anil K. Gupta & Paul E. Tesluk & M. Susan Taylor, 2007. "Innovation At and Across Multiple Levels of Analysis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 885-897, December.
    8. Cécile Ayerbe & Cécile Fonrouge, 2005. "Les transitions entre innovations:études de cas et proposition d’une grille d’interprétation," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 8(2), pages 39-64, June.
    9. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    10. Kelley, Donna J. & Peters, Lois & O'Connor, Gina Colarelli, 2009. "Intra-organizational networking for innovation-based corporate entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 221-235, May.
    11. Birkinshaw, Julian & Ridderstråle, Jonas, 1999. "Fighting the corporate immune system: a process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 149-180, April.
    12. Koryak, Oksana & Lockett, Andy & Hayton, James & Nicolaou, Nicos & Mole, Kevin, 2018. "Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 413-427.
    13. Jan Mattsson & Helge Helmersson & Katarina Stetler, 2016. "Motivation Fatigue As A Threat To Innovation: Bypassing The Productivity Dilemma In R&D By Cyclic Production," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    15. Gatti, Corrado & Volpe, Loredana & Vagnani, Gianluca, 2015. "Interdependence among productive activities: Implications for exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 711-722.
    16. Thomas Keil & Rita Gunther McGrath & Taina Tukiainen, 2009. "Gems from the Ashes: Capability Creation and Transformation in Internal Corporate Venturing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 601-620, June.
    17. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.
    18. Sunkee Lee, 2019. "Learning-by-Moving: Can Reconfiguring Spatial Proximity Between Organizational Members Promote Individual-level Exploration?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 467-488, May.
    19. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    20. Qing Cao & Eric Gedajlovic & Hongping Zhang, 2009. "Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 781-796, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:25:y:2014:i:5:p:1287-1305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.